The Study of the Validity Test on the Self-monitoring Scale

Lee, Seon Ah

Abstract

The study of the validity test on the self-monitoring scale for nurses In this study. both the literary survey as well as empirical research has been executed to test the validity of the scales that measure the construct of the self-monitoring scale. The self-monitoring scale could not be classified into five factors as Snyder suggested. Many other scholars( Briggs, Cheek and Buss, 1580) suggested 3 different classifications which was accepted by Snyder and Gangestad (1986) , John, Cheek and Klohnen(1996) claimed a two -factor classification. As has been discussed. factor analysis is used to prove convergent validity within the (actor and discriminant validity between the factors. However, depending on the researchers, many variations in classification of the factors were found and a lack of content and discriminant validity were found in the previous research findings. It is also important to note that Snyder's self-monitoring scale did not factor-load at over . 30 for all 25 items, regardless of how many factors could be classified. According to findings of this study, the self-monitoring scale neither classified as five, three or two factors nor (actor loaded as hypothesized. It is also clear that Snyder's self-monitoring scale lacks convergent validity as the sub-(actors of the scale failed to prove its uni -dimensionality. The A self-monitoring scale not only fail to overcome the problems of Snyder's self-monitoring scale but even lost the attractiveness of the self-monitoring scale. In this study it was also found that the A self-monitoring scale was not classified in either in a two or three-factor classification as hypothesized. It is, of course, not desirable to use any scale that lacks convergent and discriminant validity even though it has been widely used and has held a great deal of influence on the field of social psychology. To overcome the shortcomings of Snyder's self-monitoring scale, Lennox and Wolfe(1984) suggested 13 items. This study was dedicated to test the validity and reliability of the scale, in which we found that the data presented in validity as the two factors were classified and loaded as expected. Reliability was also proven by checking Cronbach's alpha for each factor and for the total items. In addition a confirmatory factor analysis was executed for the 13items using M SREL 8.12 program to confirm convergent validity in a two-factor classification. The model was fitting and sound however, the self-monitoring scale was unfitted and not validated. Thus, it is recommended to use not the original nor the abbreviated self-monitoring scale but the 13 items in future studies. It should also be noted that items 7 and 13 should be removed to obtain better mini-dimensionality for the 13 items. These items loaded at over .30, too high for the two factors in the test results of Factor analysis. In addition. it is necessary to double-check the cause of two-hold loading at over .30 for the two factors. It could be a problem caused by data or by the scale itself. Therefore, additional studies should follow to better clarify this matter.